Legal Opinion
Furniture Brands International, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided October 20, 2011No. Slip Op. 11-132; Court 07-00026PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STANCEU, Judge:
This case arises from decisions of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) to deny plaintiff Furniture Brands International, Inc. (“Furniture Brands”) status as an “affected domestic producer” (“ADP”) under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA” or “Byrd Amendment”), Pub.L. No. 106-387, §§ 1001-03, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-72-75 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (2000)), 1 repealed by Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171, § 7601(a), 120 Stat. 4, 154 (Feb. 8, 2006; effective Oct. 1, 2007). ADP status potentially would…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- New Hampshire Ball Bearing, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
- Ethan Allen Global, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
- Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
- Pat Huval Restaurant & Oyster Bar, Inc. v. United States International Trade CommissionUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
- Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.